City Council votes to disapprove Bally’s Ferry Point map amendment, council split on economic promise

The New York City Council voted 29 in favor, 9 opposed and 4 abstentions on a motion to disapprove the Bally’s Ferry Point map amendment and related rezoning (LU 3-21, LU 3-22 and LU 3-23), effectively blocking that stage of the proposal from moving forward.

Councilmember Maritza Mamarado, who represents the district where the proposal was located, urged colleagues to block the project, saying, "This is not real economic development. This is not housing, a hospital, or community improvements. It's a casino," and asked members to "vote yes to disapprove this application and the proposal." Her remarks emphasized community distrust of the applicant and concerns about the timing and specificity of promised benefits.

Councilmember Rafael Salamanca spoke in opposition to the disapproval motion, arguing the borough would lose a chance for economic development. Salamanca said The Bronx has "the worst health outcomes of all 62 counties in New York" and warned that rejecting the application would deny the borough "hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development and...community benefits," urging colleagues to "please vote no to disapprove applications LU 3-21, 3-22, and 3-23."

The debate centered on competing claims about local job creation and long-term community benefit packages versus concerns about casinos’ impacts and whether the application included sufficiently specific commitments. No mover or second for the disapproval is listed in the record provided; the council recorded the final tally when the general orders were adopted.

The disapproval vote means the specific city-level approvals the applicant sought at this stage will not proceed. Council members on both sides repeatedly framed their positions as advocating for their boroughs and constituents: proponents said the proposal offered union construction and permanent jobs; opponents said community trust and concrete, enforceable commitments were lacking.

The council’s procedural record shows the general orders calendar was adopted with most items passing unanimously or by large margins, while LU 3-21, LU 3-22 and LU 3-23 were adopted (the disapproval) by a roll-call margin of 29 in the affirmative, 9 in the negative and 4 abstentions.

Planning, state-level licensing and any future applications remain separate from this vote; the city council’s disapproval at this stage does not itself grant or deny any state gaming license.